Assaf Kadar1,2, Haggai Sherman3, Michael Drexler3,4, Eldad Katz3, Ely L Steinberg3,4. 1. Orthopedic Division, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann St, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel. Assafkadar@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel. Assafkadar@hotmail.com. 3. Orthopedic Division, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann St, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Partial patellectomy (PP) and reattachment of the patellar ligament with transosseous suturing is the mainstay of surgical treatment for distal pole patellar fractures. An anchor suturing (AS) technique has recently been reported as an alternative to PP in such fractures and allows for bone-to-bone interface and possibly superior fracture healing than bone-to-tendon interface with PP. We present our experience with AS and compare it to PP. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011, 60 patients with distal pole patellar fracture underwent either AS (n = 27) or PP (n = 33). We retrospectively gathered their demographic data and information on fracture type, fixation technique, operation time, postoperative complications and knee range of motion. A telephone survey was performed to grade functional outcomes with standard questionnaires (the SF-12 for quality of life, the Kujala score for patellofemoral function and a visual analog scale [VAS] pain score). RESULTS: AS was equivalent to PP in terms of residual pain and functional outcomes (VAS: 2.45 vs. 2.26, p = 0.83 and Kujala score: 74.3 vs. 69, p = 0.351, respectively) as well as for knee range of motion. Complications included three cases of infection in each group, two cases of early hardware failure and one case of non-union in the AS group. Operation time was significantly shorter for AS compared to PP (68.5 vs. 79.1 min, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: AS is non-inferior to PP for function and pain after distal pole patellar fractures and is superior to PP with regard to operative time. Common complications of this technique are hardware failure and infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.
PURPOSE: Partial patellectomy (PP) and reattachment of the patellar ligament with transosseous suturing is the mainstay of surgical treatment for distal pole patellar fractures. An anchor suturing (AS) technique has recently been reported as an alternative to PP in such fractures and allows for bone-to-bone interface and possibly superior fracture healing than bone-to-tendon interface with PP. We present our experience with AS and compare it to PP. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011, 60 patients with distal pole patellar fracture underwent either AS (n = 27) or PP (n = 33). We retrospectively gathered their demographic data and information on fracture type, fixation technique, operation time, postoperative complications and knee range of motion. A telephone survey was performed to grade functional outcomes with standard questionnaires (the SF-12 for quality of life, the Kujala score for patellofemoral function and a visual analog scale [VAS] pain score). RESULTS: AS was equivalent to PP in terms of residual pain and functional outcomes (VAS: 2.45 vs. 2.26, p = 0.83 and Kujala score: 74.3 vs. 69, p = 0.351, respectively) as well as for knee range of motion. Complications included three cases of infection in each group, two cases of early hardware failure and one case of non-union in the AS group. Operation time was significantly shorter for AS compared to PP (68.5 vs. 79.1 min, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: AS is non-inferior to PP for function and pain after distal pole patellar fractures and is superior to PP with regard to operative time. Common complications of this technique are hardware failure and infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.
Authors: J L Marsh; Theddy F Slongo; Julie Agel; J Scott Broderick; William Creevey; Thomas A DeCoster; Laura Prokuski; Michael S Sirkin; Bruce Ziran; Brad Henley; Laurent Audigé Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Benedikt Schliemann; Niklas Grüneweller; Daiwei Yao; Clemens Kösters; Simon Lenschow; Steffen B Roßlenbroich; Michael J Raschke; Andre Weimann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Alexander Ellwein; Helmut Lill; Rony-Orijit DeyHazra; Tomas Smith; Jan Christoph Katthagen Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.075